Group items tagged

There are pros and cons to electronic readers and hard copies. E-readers have several pros, such as the ability to get almost any book the reader may want, it saves trees and it is also easy to carry around. However, more and more people are rejecting e-readers and returning to hear copies. The two leading arguments for hard-copy would be that they prevent you from getting distracted. It has also been shown that readers retain information better through hard-copy books.

As e-readers grow in popularity as convenient alternatives to traditional books, researchers have found that convenience may not be their only benefit. The team discovered that when e-readers are set up to display only a few words per line, some people with dyslexia can read more easily, quickly and with greater comprehension.

The shift from print to digital reading may lead to more than changes in speed and physical processing. It may come at a cost to understanding, analyzing, and evaluating a text. However, research suggests that people can deeply read using digital media: what's needed is self-monitoring, focus, and use of strategies such as annotation, either the old-fashioned way, or digitally. Digital devices in and of themselves may not disrupt the fuller synthesis of deep reading. What does: multitasking on the Internet and distractions caused by hyperlinks. Indeed, some data suggest that, in certain environments and on certain types of tasks, we can read equally well in any format.

This article examines the relationship between borrowed language and bilingual speakers' grasp of their known languages. It highlights the implicit understanding of grammar rules that bilingual speakers naturally develop for their languages and debunks the misconception that loan words damage a speaker's understanding of another language. The article described a study on bilingual speakers in Ottawa-Hull who combined language (code-switching or "mish-mashing") while still following the correct grammatical structures. (i.e. "If a verb was borrowed from English, it was conjugated in strict accordance with the rules for conjugating French verbs..") It also reminded readers that pronunciation is not intrinsically tied to language proficiency.

"...when the exact same material is presented in both media, there is no measurable difference in student performance. ... However, there are some subtle distinctions that favor print, which may matter in the long run. ... First, more repetition was required with computer reading to impart the same information. "Second, the book readers seemed to digest the material more fully. ... seemingly irrelevant factors like remembering whether you read something at the top or the bottom of page - or whether it was on the right or left hand side of a two-page spread or near a graphic - can help cement material in mind. ... spatial context may be particularly important because evolution may have shaped the mind to easily recall location cues so we can find our way around ... E-books, however, provide fewer spatial landmarks than print."

The term 'eye dialect' was first coined in 1925 by George P. Krapp in The English Language in America (McArthur 1998). The term was used to describe the phenomenon of unconventional spelling used to reproduce colloquial usage. When one encounters such spellings "the convention violated is one of the eyes, and not of the ear". Furthermore, eye dialect would be used by writers "not to indicate a genuine difference in pronunciation, but the spelling is a friendly nudge to the reader, a knowing look which establishes a sympathetic sense of superiority between the author and reader as contrasted with the humble speaker of dialect". Mrs. Cowell's note: Contemporary writers of color now employ eye dialect to show disdain for the word that's misspelled, e.g. Cherokee writer Qwo-Li Driskill uses "AmeriKKKan" to underscore the racism and cultural genocide happening in a country that pays lip service to justice and equity.

This NYT article reports findings of a recently released study, which concluded that computers are capable of scoring essays on standardized tests as well, or possibly better, than humans. However, Les Perelman, a director of writing at MIT and a tester of the Educational Testing Services E-Rater program disagrees, arguing that the system can be easily "gamed".

How exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read? How reading on screens differs from reading on paper is relevant not just to the youngest among us, but to just about everyone who reads-to anyone who routinely switches between working long hours in front of a computer at the office and leisurely reading paper magazines and books at home; to people who have embraced e-readers for their convenience and portability, but admit that for some reason they still prefer reading on paper; and to those who have already vowed to forgo tree pulp entirely. As digital texts and technologies become more prevalent, we gain new and more mobile ways of reading-but are we still reading as attentively and thoroughly? How do our brains respond differently to onscreen text than to words on paper? Should we be worried about dividing our attention between pixels and ink or is the validity of such concerns paper-thin?

This journal entry is about studies conducted to compare different reading platforms such as hard cover books, e-readers, tablets and desktop computers. These studies covered topics such as cognition, preferred mode for reading and the physicality of reading.